Saturday, June 30, 2012

The attorney in a publicized challenge to Barack Obama’s
eligibility to be president told WND the Florida case took an unexpected turn
in court yesterday, one he says “pulled the rug out” from Obama’s lawyers and
should force a quick answer from the judge.

Attorney Larry Klayman told WND he had expected an “uneventful”
hearing in the ongoing case, which returned before Judge Terry Lewis yesterday,
but instead found a legal tangle that he believes means Lewis will “have to
make a decision, have to put it on record.”

Klayman originally filed the challenge to Obama’s eligibility
for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies himself as “a
registered member of the Democratic Party, voter and taxpayer in Broward
County.”

As WND reported, however, attorneys
representing Obama at the case’s main hearing, which was livestreamed by WND,
argued that the Florida presidential preference primary, which listed Obama as
the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the party’s nominee for president. They
urged Lewis to decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for
president and therefore ignore evidence challenging his eligibility.

But Klayman told WND yesterday that Florida law is unique in
that it gives the average voter “much greater freedom to challenge eligibility
and fraud than most other states.”

Florida law permits filing for “declaratory relief” at any time,
Klayman said, a move that would force a judge to rule on the facts of the case
even before a decision on whether to compel some legal action. In other words,
in the Voeltz case, instead of waiting until the nominating convention – which
Klayman called a “shell game” Obama attorneys are playing to put off the issue
–Lewis would be pushed to make a declaration on Obama’s eligibility “whether
nominated or not.”

“Lewis would have to reach a decision; he would have to put it
on record,” Klayman said. “By amending for declaratory relief, we’re pulling
the rug right out from Obama and the Florida secretary of state.”

Klayman told WND Obama’s lawyers immediately went into a
tailspin and filed to have the amendment for declaratory relief stricken, which
the judge granted, arguing he wanted to wait to issue a formal decision in the
case.

But Klayman said his team is willing to file a stand-alone
complaint for declaratory relief with Lewis as soon as next week and “pull the
rug out from under him, too.”

“This judge can’t get out from under his legal requirement,”
Klayman said. “If he screws around, he’s violating law.”

In hundreds of cases filed challenging Obama’s eligibility, the
full range of questions – from Obama’s birth records, charged by some as
fraudulent, to the Constitution’s meaning of “natural born citizen” – have
never been ruled upon, dismissed typically on questions of who has “standing”
to bring the challenge.

Klayman, however, told WND, “It doesn’t matter how Lewis rules,
the losing side will appeal, and this case is going up, maybe all the way to
the Supreme Court.”

Still, he said, “I want Lewis to address the issue of
eligibility and create a record, so we can take it up before the election. I’m
still confident, hopeful that will happen.”

Following the case’s first hearing, the judge said he would
review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides.

For example, When Klayman noted the Founding Fathers established
the natural-born citizen requirement because they wanted to avoid foreign
influence on a president from a non-citizen parent, Lewis countered by posing a
hypothetical situation in which a candidate’s two U.S.-citizen parents later
emigrate to Israel.

Klayman said the Founding Fathers’ attempt to avoid a conflict
of interest in the Oval Office did not include every possible scenario.

The judge asked whether the Democratic Party, as a private
group, had a right to choose a nominee, even if that person was ineligible.

Lewis questioned a citation by Obama’s attorneys of a Florida
law that suggests when only one person is on the ballot, that person
automatically becomes the nominee. He told the attorneys he would review the
details of the law.

The arguments by Obama’s attorneys reflected their request that
the judge simply dismiss the case because they claim a sitting president chosen
by his party at multiple levels is not yet officially the nominee.

Klayman accused the Obama attorneys trying to delay the issue,
as numerous courts did in 2008 until the election was over and Obama was
inaugurated.

The judge could remove Obama’s name from the November ballot in
Florida, a crucial swing state, should he determine that the Constitution’s
requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen” can be applied at the
primary level.

Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month on discovery
issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme
Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the
offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments
provided no citations.

Defining the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached
in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s
eligibility.

The U.S. Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement is
not imposed on other federal officials. The writings of the Founders indicate
the requirement was meant to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties
would serve as commander in chief.

Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was
not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and,
therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.

Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters
to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of
the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not
eligible for the office he is seeking.

On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency,
and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the
Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his
birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother,
Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.

There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically
produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No
physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been
produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within
the United States.

The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s
investigation into Obama’s eligibility. The investigation by professional law
enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse
found probable cause that Obama’s birth certificate was forged and fraudulently
presented as a genuine document.

The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to
support the claim.

The complaint explains that even if Obama was born within the
United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S.
Constitution. That’s because his father was born in the British Colony of Kenya
on June 18, 1936, making him a British subject, according to the British
Nationality Act of 1948.

A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant
Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. …
Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be
his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the
electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise
altered.”

When asked by Judge Lewis, Klayman confirmed he could add to the
complaint details of the evidence Obama was not born in the U.S.

Obama’s attorneys told the judge that other courts have decided
that courts should not make such decisions and the process is better handled by
Congress. They said state courts especially are not suited to making a decision
on the eligibility of Obama.

“They are precluded from judging the qualifications of
candidates for president of the United States,” the Obama attorneys said.

But Klayman pleaded with the judge to decide the issue, because
a determination made after the election could negate Florida’s vote.

“Florida has a special duty not just on behalf of the citizens
of Florida but on behalf of the United States,” he said.

Klayman referred to a recent Obama order to underscore the
significance of the Founders’ desire that the president not have divided
loyalties or “not even a hint of foreign influence.”

“Just a few days ago, he issued an executive order … which in
effect allows illegal alien students who came into this country … to remain in this
country. … The president’s own father was in fact here on a student visa and
ultimately was deported because that visa expired.”

Klayman reiterated the Supreme Court’s Minor v. Happersett
definition of “natural born citizen” as a person born in the country of two
citizen parents.

“The point is this, your honor,” said Klayman. “The president is
not like everybody else. If that was the case the framers would have said
‘citizens’ [can be president.]”

He accused Obama’s attorneys of trying to “push the issue down
the road” until the legal process would fail due to lack of time.

Friday, June 29, 2012

To
understand Article 2 Section 1 Clause 4, one must simply look at it through the
prism of the time it was written. At the time of the ratification of the
Constitution, 1789, the time referred to in the clause, there were only 2 sets
of “citizens” in America, and all were eligible to be President. Those two sets
were the citizens of the new states in 1789, and the natural born Citizens, or
those born of the citizens of those new states since the Declaration of
Independence.

From
the American perspective the ante nati, the time when those born in the
colonies were British, and adhered to perpetual allegiance to the Crown, ended
on July 4, 1776. The British perspective is that the Treaty of Peace, ending
the Revolutionary War, in 1783, ended the ante nati. (28 US 99, 121). The
Treaty of Peace released all British subjects from perpetual allegiance who
were resident in the colonies and adhered to the Revolution (they were given
until 1789 to leave if they desired), and the Americans adopted law of nations
or “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God” on July 4, 1776.

The
case of Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 US 99 (1830), only
41 years after ratification, illustrates that point in time of 1789. The reason
that case is annotated to Article 2 section 1, clause 4, by the 43rd Congress, in the
Revised Statutes 1873, is because of that illustration. It proves that
Congress, in 1873, thought that natural born Citizens were born in the US of 2
US Citizen parents. The clause has never been amended, and must mean exactly
what it did then. Any blurring, clouding, or obfuscation of the meaning of
natural born Citizen is thwarted by the simple logic of examining the point in
time the clause was ratified.

According
to the holding of the majority in Sailors v. Trustees (1830), John Inglis, even
if born within the United States after the Declaration of Independence, would
have been considered a British subject, because he followed the election of his
father, Charles, as a British subject, and was too young to make that election.
“The facts disclosed in this case, then,
lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of
Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his
native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the
condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and
fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act
disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.” 28 US 99, 124

“2.
If born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September of the same year, when the
British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making
any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his
father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the
termination of his minority, which never having been done, he remains a British
subject and disabled from inheriting the land in question.” Id., 126

John
Inglis stood on the same ground as Barack H. Obama stands today, born in
America (supposedly) as a British subject, of a British subject father. John
Inglis certainly was not a natural born Citizen at that point in time; he could
not even inherit land in America, much less be President. Likewise, Barack H.
Obama, born British in 1961 is certainly not natural born by the holding of
Inglis.

In
1789 only two sets of US Citizens existed, and there was no Congressional
naturalization law yet. Those that were resident in the colonies in 1789, who
were either born in the ante nati, in the colonies, as British subjects, or who
had immigrated and resided prior to 1789, were naturalized by the ratification
of the Constitution as US Citizens. Those born of those new US Citizens since
7/4/1776 were the natural born Citizens, needing no naturalization. The first
natural born Citizens were only 13 years old at the time of ratification, so
the “citizens at the time of the ratification” were grandfathered in to eligibility.
ALL US citizens, resident in the colonies in 1789, were eligible to be
President, and NONE of them were British. Of course some of them were born
British, but were released from that perpetual allegiance by adherence to the
Revolution, and by the Treaty of Peace, 1783, and were grandfathered in to
eligibility by Article 2. Barack H. Obama was born 172 years too late to take
advantage of that clause. The Inglis
case illustrates perfectly that point in time when law of nations, and the
right of election, replaced British Common Law and perpetual allegiance to the
Crown. The fact that Congress annotates Article 2, section 1, clause 4 with
Inglis tells us that the thought that “no one knows” what natural born meant,
or that it was “not defined” is utter nonsense.

“British
doctrine therefore is that the American ante nati, by remaining in America
after the treaty of peace, lost their character of British subjects. And our
doctrine is that by withdrawing from this country and adhering to the British
government, they lost, or, perhaps more properly speaking, never acquired the
character of American citizens.

This
right of election must necessarily exist in all revolutions like ours, and is
so well established by adjudged cases that it is entirely unnecessary to enter
into an examination of the authorities. The only difficulty that can arise is
to determine the time when the election should have been made. Vattel, B. 1,
ch. 3.” Id., 122

“The
law of nations is a law founded on the great and immutable principles of equity
and natural justice.” The Venus, 12 US (8 Cranch) 253, 297 (1814)

Justice
Gray, in Wong Kim Ark, cites Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” that, "'British
subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown…
'Natural-born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British
subject at the moment of his birth.'” 169 US 649, 658

“Citizens”
are not “subjects” (isn’t that what the Revolutionary War was about?), and have
the “right of election” according to the Inglis case. The new US Citizens threw
off perpetual allegiance, which in the eyes of the laws of nations is the bane
of all freedom loving people.

Natural
Allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience finds no countenance in
the law of nations, and is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of
that rule of law. Twiss, Law of Nations in Peace, pg. 231

“The
doctrine of perpetual allegiance is inadmissible in the US, that matter settled
by the Revolution”. Cushing, Foreign Relations of the United States, Part 2,
pg. 1280 (William Cushing served on the first Supreme Court).

There is no British Common Law in America. It ended in
1776. If the right of election supplanted perpetual allegiance at that point,
then to say that “natural born Citizen” is the same as “natural born subject”
is a nonsensical lie.

Theytook prayerout of the schools. We grumbled, but did nothing. They took George Washington's portrait out of the classrooms. We grumbled, but did nothing. They started teachingcollective socialist doctrineto our children. We grumbled, but did nothing.They startedawarding trophiesto every player in school team sports, winners and losers. They replaced health classes with sex education, and taught it to grade school children. They promoted failing students in the name of self esteem. We grumbled, but did nothing.They raided the Social Security fund. They turned once great universities into socialist indoctrination centers. They fed us a steady diet of sex, perversion, and violence in our music, movies, and television. They told us that sexual predators and murderers can be "rehabilitated." They told us that morality itself is "relative." They created a huge underclass totally dependent on government largesse.They created a federal bureaucracy answerable to no one, with pay and retirement benefitstriplethose of the general populace. They created an imperial presidency and made the Congress inconsequential. They fostered the destruction of our manufacturing and agriculture bases. They permitted theinvasionof our country by illegal aliens, and chastised anyone who objected. They legalized and promoted the systematic murder of millions of the innocent unborn. We grumbled, but did nothing."They" have achieved this transformation of American society in a relatively short period of time. When I was a boy, no one would have even believed it possible. We said the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer to Almighty God in school every morning. We were left back if we failed. We learned to congratulate the winners of the game when we lost. We respected our parents, our teachers, our elders, and the police.We revered Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and all of those who gave us this great nation. We knew that actions had consequences, and that hard work would be rewarded. We could go to any movie playing in town, with our entire family, and not be assaulted with pornography and gratuitous violence. We were well acquainted with the concept of shame, and we knew the difference between right and wrong.Were we perfect? Certainly not. But we weren't the morally, sexually, politically ambiguous creatures that now inhabit much of America.Like with the proverbial frog in a pot of cool water, they turned the heat up slowly, changing the culture incrementally, until we arrived at our current condition -- a crumbling, corrupt society.Who are "they"?One might say "they" are the Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement, but then, that would be politically incorrect, and dismissed by the educated, enlightened New-Age American. In true Alinsky fashion, they batter us with labels. Oppose illegal immigration? Xenophobe! Oppose the LGBT agenda? Homophobe! Oppose affirmative action? Racist! Oppose abortion? Misogynist!Can we blame "them"?No. They are just doing what comes naturally to someone who follows Marxist philosophy, just as they have done in Russia, China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, England, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and all the other countries where this pernicious philosophical cancer has taken root.Can "they" be stopped? Certainly.How?By answering the difficult question: who are we?We are the apathetic, complacent ones who were too busy playing on Facebook, watching football, texting our friends, or following the decadent antics of some vacuous celebrity to stand in opposition to "them." In fact, we are as guilty as "they" are, but by omission, not commission.We must gird ourselves, get involved, and resolve to halt, and reverse this onslaught. We owe it to our children. We owe it to those who fought and died to bequeath us this great nation.Fight them. Fight them in the polling booth, the school board meeting, the city council meeting, the media, and everywhere else the opportunity presents itself. Inure yourself to criticism. Harden yourself against being ostracized. Wear the derogatory labels placed on you as badges of honor. Teach your children what being an "American" actually means. Take them to church or synagogue. Teach them to think critically. Give them a strong moral foundation. Be firm in your resolve.The tail has wagged the dog for too long. It's time for the dog to have his day.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Best Self USA is a full spectrum counseling and life skills
training facility in Naples,
FL offering distance counseling
services in the privacy of your own home by use of voice, video, online and
other media.

(Naples, FL) Best Self USA is an innovative
Counseling and Life Skills Clinic. They have been helping people for more
than 40 years, and are applying the latest research and technology.

Responding to
the needs of their clients is what motivates Best Self USA to develop new
services and techniques. Best Self USA is unique in offering long
distance services as well as helping their local clients in Naples, Florida.
The long distance counseling services grew out of the need to remain in contact
with clients who live in Naples
seasonally and elsewhere off-season.

Recently Best
Self USA has launched a new web site www.bestselfusa.com,
added new staff members, and expanded their services to include full spectrum
counseling and life skills training to a nationwide clientele. They are now
serving clients across the country.

I can't tell you how disappointed I was and how angry I suddenly became.
I railed off a note to John Cornyn (my senator -- the other one is RINO Kay
Bailey Hutchison who's quitting to run for guv) and I called Sam Johnson (my
House Rep). We're morphing to radical communism much faster than I
dreamed possible. The problem as always is Junior plays to the majority
that wants free stuff. It's a formidable number. He enjoys wide
support by illegal aliens & citizens who stand with them, 92% of the
Blacks, women, labor, media morons and the education crowd.

I listened to a panel of doctors on Fox. Again, I was shocked to hear how
ignorant they were. They kept talking about FREE access to medical care
for everyone. They completely missed the FACT that we're already being
taxed to death and soon will be insufficiently solvent to provide that FREE
care. And when the money runs out, the entire population will have no
alternatives. Rebuilding after Junior's destruction will take decades,
perhaps a century. If the House doesn't DEFUND this terrible law and
repeal it soon thereafter, we're screwed. thx. Tom

This opinion piece by Matt Patterson appeared on The American Thinker web site
18 August 2011. This article has never appeared in either the print or online
version of The Washington Post. Mr. Patterson is not a columnist for The
Washington Post. He has contributed opinion pieces to The Washington Post; this
is not one of them.

O.B.A.M.A.ONE BIG ASS MISTAKE AMERICA

Matt Patterson (columnist for the Washington Post, New YorkPost, San Francisco Examiner)

Government and Society

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as aninscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of masshysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.

How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishmentbeguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy,direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's mostconsequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama'spre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despiteunremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a"community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid oflegislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so oftendid he vote "present") ; and finally an unaccomplished single term inthe United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidentialambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as alegislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: thewhite-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's"spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served asObama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a futurehistorian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man electedpresident?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressedthe question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no whitecandidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America likeJeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasteda single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in theeyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various Americaninjustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sinkin: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color ofhis skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter whenhe was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said)"non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to becomethe first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obamaphenomenon -affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. Butcertainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws andregulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especiallywhite liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on theback. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are notqualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance andhigh drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minoritystudents fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation anddeflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmativeaction. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because ofthe color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if thatisn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubledby his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama wastold he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades atOccidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocrerecord in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite norecord at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama wastold he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to thecontrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every timeObama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualificationsnonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character.Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of cliches, and that's when he hashis teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barelythink or speak at all.

Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it's allwarmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything andeverything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inheritedthis mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise hisown powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence.

But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible foranything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither thetemperament nor the intellect to handle his job.

When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will thecurrent erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not havegone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.Here's Matt's website.http://mattpattersononline.co...

Part of it is a rehash of a Post article by Norman Podhoretz. But... This is what my research has turned up'Matt Patterson is editor of Labor Watch and Green Watch at CRC, and the 2011-2012 Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Matt's columns and commentary have appeared in some of the nation's top newspapers and political sites, including the Washington Post, New York Post, Washington Examiner, American Thinker, and FOXNews.com. From 2009 to 2010, he was a Washington Fellow at the National Review Institute. Previously he served as research assistant to Charles Krauthammer and political coordinator for the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Jerry Collette, plaintiff
in the Pasco County Florida Ballot Challenge case against Barack Obama, stated
that attorneys for Obama have declined an
offer from Collette to limit discovery to Obama’s birth records. Collette said,
“My offer was very simple. If I survive the motions to dismiss, Obama would permit
me access to the original and microfiche birth records in Hawaii and the
copies he claims to have gotten from Hawaii last year, then I would waive all
other discovery. They declined my offer.”

Sam Sewell, Director of
the Florida Ballot Challenge said, “This is amazing. Collette was willing to
give up access to Obama’s social security, draft, and college records, any of
which could contain information very damaging to Obama, yet Obama is still
unwilling to release his original birth records.”

George Miller, Assistant
Director of the Obama State Ballot Challenge added, “Collette was also willing
to give up his right to depose Obama. That was huge. Remember, the lie that led
to Bill Clinton’s impeachment occurred during a deposition.”

Pamela Barnett, Director
of the Obama State Ballot Challenge said, “Obama certainly must believe that
there is something worth hiding in those original birth records.”

Sam
Sewell said “The reasons I teamed up with Jerry Collette are because he is a
fellow Christian, he is a fellow clergyman, he is a fellow pastoral counselor,
he is a fellow MENSA member, and he has a reputation for developing very
creative outside the box legal theories and strategies. His offer to
Obama’s lawyer was a brilliant move. The moment Collette made the offer, Obama
was stuck in a no-win situation. If Obama had accepted, Collette would get
access to the original birth records. By declining, Obama again admits to the world,
by implication, that he still has something to hide.”Checkmate!

The case is Collette
v. Obama, case number: 512012CA 2041WS. The next hearing is scheduled for
July 10, 2012, at 3:30 pm at the West Pasco Judicial Center in New Port Richey
FL.

WE NEED YOUR HELP!
If you are interested in lending support to a Do It Yourself
citizen activist filing in one of the local jurisdictions, please mark your
donation: DIY Challenge. By filing cases in multiple
jurisdictions, we greatly reduce our financial output, and multiply our chances
of finding ONE courageous judge who will move on this case in a timely manner.

Sam on Bob Harden Show

Who Is Aristotle the Hun

"Aristotle the Hun" was the name given to me more than 30 years ago when a friend noticed that in spite of my intellect I was still an Iowa farm boy.

Rev. Sam Sewell, is Director of Best Self USA, a Pastoral Psychotherapist, serves on the faculty of Naples Community Hospital as an instructor for Clinical Pastoral Education, President of the Theological Center in Naples, a member of Mensa where he serves as Gifted Youth Coordinator, a U.S. Navy Veteran, and a Member of the Association For Intelligence Officers. He is a frequent commentator on mental health and religious issues.His award winning research on family issues is published in several languages. Member of Sigma Delta Chi Honor Society

Videos - One of Five

Quotation Gallery

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."- St. Augustine

"A new idea is first condemned as ridiculous, and then dismissed as trivial, until finally it becomes what everybody knows." -

William James

"This is the real task before us: to reassert our commitment as a nation to a law higher than our own, to renew our spiritual strength. Only by building a wall of such spiritual resolve can we, as a free people, hope to protect our own heritage and make it someday the birthright of all men." --Ronald Reagan

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."-- Edward Abbey

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."John Stuart Mill

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~~~George Washington

"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." William F. Buckley, Jr.

"Conservatives are enemies of the government. Liberals are enemies of the nation because they are not enemies of the government."Aristotle the Hun

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"Albert Einstein

"Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass...it's about learning how to dance in the rain." ANON

"That government is best which governs least."Thomas Paine

“A nation that substitutes emotion and empathy for rational thought will eventually digress into the Dark Ages,”Congressman Steve King (R-IA),

INTEGRITY: The highest courage is to dare to be ourself in the face of adversity. Choosing ethics over convenience and truth over popularity means there is never a wrong time to do the right thing.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

They may be more likely to go to Heaven for good intentions yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.~ C. S. Lewis

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." ANON

Guide for newbies!

This blog was started to give people a source of information they can trust. I almost never make the mistake of including scams, false rumors, or poorly researched items. I encourage readers to alert me if they spot an anomaly. It will be quickly corrected.

The search function is in the upper left hand corner. Readers are invited to cut and paste from this blog to your own emails. Each subject title has an embedded link so cut and paste the title and the first few lines. That will direct a person back to this blog.

Below the usual ad and personal profile you will find links to topics located on the right hand side of the page. You may find it easier to select topics of interest to you rather than scrolling all topics as they occur chronologically. (Gee, that's a six syllable word!)

The government is conspiring against the citizens. The citizens have pitchforks, torches, tea bags, tea parties, Grand Juries and the Constitution. The government doesn't stand a chance!

Our other web pages-blogs

The famous Chapter 16 from "I Fired My Doctors" thathas become a "best seller" as a separate publication.

"The stress management chapter alone is worth the price of the book.”
Selwyn Mills, PhD